Water Resources - Planning Development and Management

WATER RESOURCESPLANNING,

DEVELOPMENT ANDMANAGEMENTEdited by Ralph A. Wurbs

www.Ketabdownload.com

ContributorsMakarius Victor Mdemu, Sandra Mesquita, Rachel Noble, Nikki Funke, Marius Claassen, Shanna Nienaber, Arturo Cruz-Falcn, James Tolan, Ralph Wurbs, Eric Koomen, Gregory Breetzke, William Critchley, Jianli Liu, Pengzhi Lin, ChangboJiang

First published May, 2013Printed in Croatia

Water Resources Planning, Development and Management, Edited by Ralph A. Wurbsp. cm.ISBN 978-953-51-1092-7


Contents

Preface VII

Chapter 1 Development and Uptake of Scenarios to Support WaterResources Planning, Development and Management Examples from South Africa 1Nikki Funke, Marius Claassen and Shanna Nienaber

Chapter 2 Recent Developments in Monitoring of MicrobiologicalIndicators of Water Quality Across a Range ofWater Types 29Sandra Mesquita and Rachel T. Noble

Chapter 3 GIS-Assisted Modelling of Soil Erosion in a South AfricanCatchment: Evaluating the USLE and SLEMSA Approach 53G. D. Breetzke, E. Koomen and W. R. S. Critchley

Chapter 4 Estuarine Fisheries Community-Level Response toFreshwater Inflows 73James M. Tolan

Chapter 5 Coastal Reservoir Strategy and Its Applications 95Shuqing Yang, Jianli Liu, Pengzhi Lin and Changbo Jiang

Chapter 6 Productivity of Water in Large Rice (Paddy) Irrigation Schemesin the Upper Catchment of the Great Ruaha River Basin,Tanzania 117Makarius Victor Mdemu and Theresia Francis

Chapter 7 Location of the Rainfall Recharge Areas in the Basin of La Paz,BCS, Mxico 143Arturo Cruz-Falcn, Enrique Troyo-Diguez, Hctor Fraga-Palominoand Juan Vega-Mayagoitia


Chapter 8 Water Allocation Systems 157Ralph A. Wurbs

ContentsVI


Preface

Effective planning, development, and management of water resources, locally, regionally,and globally, are crucial for human welfare, economic prosperity, and environmental protection. Water is essential to all of us. Human health and socioeconomic welfare is dependent on adequate supplies of suitable quality water. The vitality of natural ecologicalsystems is dependent on mankinds stewardship of water resources. Water is divertedfrom rivers, lakes, and aquifers to supply municipal, domestic, livestock, agricultural irrigation, energy production, and various industrial uses. Conversely, too much water results in socioeconomic damages and loss of life due to flooding. Flood risk mitigation,drainage, and erosion control are important concerns along with water supply, health andsanitation, and water quality protection.Water has played a key role in the development of civilizations since ancient times. Problems, needs, and opportunities have grown dramatically during the past century withpopulation growth, urban and industrial development, expansion of irrigated agriculture, aging infrastructure, pollution and environmental degradation, and technologicaladvances. Continually growing demands on limited water resources will intensify futurechallenges.This book addresses a broad range of fundamental issues that are essential to effective planning, development, and management of water resources. The authors represent diversefields of science, engineering, and water management as well as diverse geographical perspectives. Although applications in particular countries or regions are discussed in the individual chapters, the concepts and methods presented are generally applicable throughoutthe world. The book provides authoritative coverage of an array of innovative state-of-the-art methods for supporting important decisions faced by water professionals and society.Chapter 1 describes concepts of developing scenarios in dealing with uncertainties in water planning. Chapter 2 is a state-of-the-art assessment of capabilities for monitoring microbiological indicators of water quality. Chapter 3 provides a comparative assessment ofthe soil loss estimator method applied in South Africa for predicting erosion and thewidely applied universal soil loss equation. The biological response to freshwater inflowsto estuaries is explored in Chapter 4. The concept of constructing freshwater reservoirs inthe seawater near river mouths to capture river flows is explained in Chapter 5. Chapter 6describes methods for assessing the productivity of water allocation schemes for largescale rice irrigation. Chapter 7 investigates factors controlling groundwater recharge.Mechanisms for allocating limited water resources between numerous water users aredescribed in Chapter 8.


The concepts and methods presented in this book should prove beneficial to both watermanagement practitioners and research scientists and engineers. As editor, I sincerelythank the authors for their contributions to the important interdisciplinary fields that advance water planning, development, and management for the benefit of people throughout the world.

Ralph A. Wurbs, Ph.D., P.E., D.WREArthur McFarland Professor of Civil Engineering

Professor of Water Management and Hydrologic ScienceTexas A&M University

College Station, Texas, USA

PrefaceVIII


Chapter 1

Development and Uptake of Scenarios to SupportWater Resources Planning, Development andManagement Examples from South Africa

Nikki Funke, Marius Claassen and Shanna NienaberAdditional information is available at the end of the chapter

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/52577

1. IntroductionThe international agenda on water resources development reflects societal needs, politicalagendas, economic realities and the state of resources. The industrial revolution, which started in the 18th century, brought social and economic prosperity but also marked a major shiftin humanitys impact on the earths systems. This shift is now referred to as the Anthropocene [1], where humans have brought such vast and unprecedented changes to the planetthat this era represents a new geological time interval [2]. Societal needs have shifted sincethe 1940s from a need for modest food production to a need for increased agricultural productivity that has been met by high yield crops, the use of pesticides, the application of fertiliser and advanced agricultural techniques. This development has averted food shortages,but has also resulted in humanity having to pay a heavy price in terms of increased wateruse and energy consumption, as well as environmental degradation [3].From the early 1970s a series of events and key documents has promoted an integrated approach to sustainable development. The 1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment considered the need for a common outlook towards the preservation andenhancement of the human environment [4]. The World Commission on Environment andDevelopment advanced this agenda in their report Our Common Future, with an emphasison sustainable development promoting harmony among human beings and between humanity and nature [5]. The International Conference on Water and the Environment thattook place in Dublin in 1992 resulted in the development of four guiding principles [6].These principles, commonly referred to as the Dublin principles, state that: water is a finiteresource with economic value and social implications; local communities must participate in

2013 Funke et al.; licensee InTech. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CreativeCommons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use,distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.


water management; water resources management must be developed within a set of policies; and the role of rural populations and women should be recognised. This led to the RioDeclaration and the adoption of Agenda 21, which is a comprehensive plan of action to beimplemented globally, nationally and locally in every area in which humanity impacts onthe environment [7]. This declaration subsequently became the blueprint for sustainable development world-wide [8].Uncertainties about societal, economic, political and environmental aspects have proved tobe a considerable obstacle to the implementation of sustainable development. Here follow afew examples of such uncertainties. In 1980, the World Development Report of the UnitedNations [9] estimated that the world population would reach 6.029bn by the year 2000. Fiveyears later, the estimate was updated to 6.088bn [10], with further updates at five yearly increments resulting in estimates of 6.194bn and 6.123bn [11, 12]. The actual population in theyear 2000 turned out to be 6.188bn [13]. Future economic development is also uncertain,with the annual growth in Figure 1 showing how the world average varies significantly between years and also how the growth of individual countries (South Africa in this case),does not necessarily follow the global trend and is even more variable between years.

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

1961

1963

1965

1967

1969

1971

1973

1975

1977

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

2009

2011

% Gr

owth

in

GD

P

World South Africa

Figure 1. Annual economic growth between 1961 and 2011 [13]

Environmental conditions also vary significantly over time and space, with Figure 2 illustrating the annual deviation of rainfall over southern Africa. This uncertainty is exacerbatedby climate projections, which suggest that freshwater resources are vulnerable and have the

Water Resources Planning, Development and Management2


potential to be strongly impacted by climate change, with wide-ranging consequences forhuman societies and ecosystems [14].

Figure 2. Annual rainfall anomalies for the southern African region (1901-2009; Adapted from [15]).

A question that emanates from the realisation that we live in a changing world wherechange is unpredictable is, How do we plan for the future?Water use in South Africa was first regulated through the Irrigation and Conservation ofWaters Act (Act No. 8 of 1912), which managed the use of water from public streams for domestic, irrigation and industrial purposes [16]. The Water Act (Act No. 54 of 1956) furtherregulated water use by providing for the control of water pollution and the more effectiveprotection of water resources. The variable distribution of water required the developmentof infrastructure to capture, store and distribute water. The subsequent expansion of mines,industries and urban areas created a demand for further infrastructure development. Whenthis demand further increased and the social and economic issues in South Africa becameincreasingly complex in the 1990s as the country was transitioning from apartheid to democracy, a shift in thinking was required. As it became clear that engineering solutions to increase water supply were not sustainable, a holistic strategy to meet future needs becamemore popular [17].The new National Water Act (Act No. 36 of 1998) [18] emphasised water resources management at national and catchment scales, made specific provisions for the protection of waterresources, established mechanisms to ensure equitable and efficient water use and promotedparticipatory management. The National Water Resources Strategy [19] addressed the bal

Development and Uptake of Scenarios to Support Water Resources Planning, Development andhttp://dx.doi.org/10.5772/52577

3


ance of future water supply and demand by establishing scenarios. The demand scenarioswere based on population growth by 2025, with the high population scenario at 54 millionpeople and the low population scenario at 50 million people. It also established economicgrowth scenarios, with the upper scenario assuming 4% growth in GDP and the less favourable scenario assuming 1.5% [19].While there has been much progress in water infrastructure development for services (public benefit), the backlog in issuing water use licenses (mostly for private benefit) stood at 4318 in 2011 [20]. The protection of water resources has suffered as a result of the governments drive to achieve social and economic development, with South Africa ranked 128out of 132 countries in the Environmental Performance Index [21]. The National Water Actprovides for a balance of responsibilities, ranging from the Minister and Director Generalat the national level, to Catchment Management Agencies (CMAs) at the basin level andWater User Associations (WUAs) at a sub-basin level. Progress has been slow as after 14years after the promulgation of the Water Act, only two CMAs (out of the 19 intended)have been established [20]. It can be argued that many hurdles have to be overcome tofully realise cooperative governance for Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM),with inadequate human and institutional capacity being one of the main factors limitingthe efficient management of water resources in South Africa [22]. To illustrate this point:the countrys Department of Water Affairs (DWA) reported having 4 286 people in its employment in September 2010, while 1 155 posts were vacant at the time [20].From the discussion above it becomes clear that we live in a world with social, economicand environmental conditions that are variable and difficult to predict, and the water sectoris no exception. This uncertainty provides a challenging environment for policy and institutional development. Scenarios are one way of attempting to achieve a desired outcome in anuncertain and variable future [23]. The rest of this chapter will examine the research question, How are scenarios able to achieve impact in an uncertain world, with a particular focus on water resources planning, development and management? The body of this chapterfocuses on the research method, presents an overview of scenario development and the importance of scenario development and how they facilitate more effective water resourcesplanning, development and management, focuses on a few select South African scenariosand the impact they have had and then turns to discussing the impact of scenarios in general. The conclusion wraps up the learning from this chapter and suggests a way forward interms of future research and designing scenarios for impact.

2. The ability of scenarios to achieve impact in an uncertain world with afocus on water planning, development and management2.1. MethodThe authors of this chapter conducted an exploratory study on the ability of scenarios toachieve impact in an uncertain world, with particular reference to water planning, devel



opment and management. They conducted a review of scenario planning literature in thewater and other sectors, and also considered literature focusing specifically on the impactof scenarios. The authors also considered literature on the impact of scientific research andon the science-policy interface. This was accompanied by a search of major databases (e.g.Google Scholar, EBSCO Host and Scopus) to determine where and how the four scenariosdiscussed in this chapter have been cited. In addition, the authors interviewed selectedstakeholders in the water and other sectors who are likely to have been exposed to scenarios and who may use scenarios when making decisions in their workplace.

2.2. Scenarios and their importance in the water sector

2.2.1. The history of scenario developmentThe concept of scenario planning has its origin in military applications, with the US AirForce developing scenarios of what the enemy might do and preparing alternative strategies. It was thus aimed at achieving a desired outcome in an uncertain future [24]. At theend of the 1940s, researchers at the RAND Corporation started to investigate the scientificuse of expert opinion in planning for the future [25]. The Royal Dutch Shell company employed scenario tools to good effect in the 1970s, when they improved their size and profitability by being prepared to act quickly during the oil price shock of 1973 [26]. Insummarising definitions of scenarios, scenarios can be described as a narrative descriptionof a possible state of affairs or development over time, that they are useful to communicatespeculations about the future to promote discussion and feedback, and that they can dramatise trends and alternatives, explore the impacts and implications of decisions, choices andpolicies, and provide cause-and-effect explanations [24].Clem Sunter is credited with popularising the use of scenarios in South Africa, with TheWorld and South Africa in the 1990s, which describe the High Road and Low Roadscenarios [27]. The publication was based on work from Anglo American Corporationteams in London and Johannesburg. Subsequently, Adam Kahane facilitated a processthat became known as the Mont Fleur scenario project, which was launched in 1992. It explored the question of What will South Africa be like in the year 2002? These scenarioswere arrived at collaboratively by a very broad group [28]. The Department of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology (DACST) also deployed scenarios and technology foresighting in the development of South Africa's National Research and Development Strategy,with Kahn initiating and leading the development of the South African National Research and Technology Foresight Project [29]. The Dinokeng team [30] developed 3 Futures for South Africa, which characterised future scenarios based on the effectiveness ofthe state and the engagement of society. Some of the recent scenario projects in the watersector include the World Business Council for Sustainable Development report on Business in the World of Water: WBCSD Water Scenarios to 2025 [31], and the Global Research Alliance (GRA) report on Science and Technology-based Water Scenarios for sub-Saharan Africa [32].


5


2.2.2. The importance of the use of scenarios in water resources planning, development andmanagementScenarios are important and useful to water resources planning, development and management in a number of ways. In the South Africa context, in particular, scenario developmentprocesses have been instrumental in initiating strategic conversations among scenario workshop In the South African context, (e.g. the transition from apartheid to democracy), and havehelped develop a common language among people with widely divergent views [28]. Thoseinvolved in scenario development processes may be inspired to think more broadly aboutthe future and the forces creating it. They may also realise how their particular actions mayhelp to create a desired future [33]; and they may have suggestions about which options exist to direct target audiences on to a desirable path [28]. The knowledge that scenarios generate can therefore potentially empower role players in the water sector and other sectors toengage in participative governance by equipping them with insights into potential futuresthey may face, and making them aware of the implications of certain decisions, behavioursand actions [23]. Finally, the advantage of communicating scenarios as stories is that theyhave the psychological impact that other more academic means of communication, for example, graphs and equations, lack. Stories give order and meaning to events, which is crucial for imagining future possibilities [34].

2.3. Some South African scenarios: Overview and impactThe discussion in this chapter and the research question were inspired by the developmentof the Water Sector Institutional Landscape by 2025 scenarios. These scenarios were themain output of a research project led by the authors. In particular, the authors are interestedin how these scenarios could be used by potential end-users. Given this question and the importance and potential usefulness of scenarios in facilitating decision-making in a context ofuncertainty, it becomes important to reflect on some examples of scenarios that have beendeveloped in South Africa at different points in history and to learn from the impact theyhave had on different sectors, including the water sector. These scenarios are discussed inchronological order. The section starts with the High Road/Low Road scenarios that weredeveloped late in the apartheid era and on the cusp of South Africas transition to democracy.Secondly, the Mont Fleur scenarios, which were developed during the democratic negotiations, are discussed. Thirdly, the section focuses on the Dinokeng scenarios that were developed in 2009, the year a new president came to power and a serious economic crisis shookthe world. The section concludes with the Water Sector Institutional Landscape scenariosthat focus on potential futures of the South African water sector in 2025.

2.3.1. High road/Low road

2.3.1.1. Overview and processThe High Road/Low Road scenarios were an initiative by the Anglo American Corporation inthe early 1980s and aimed to look into some less conventional approaches to business planning and future investment decisions, given the international economic turbulence of the 1970s



and the resultant slump in commodity markets. During this time, South Africas economic performance was poor and several events resulted in the country becoming increasingly isolatedand the government resorting to a rule of force. Careful and gradual reforms by the apartheidgovernment in the middle to late 1980s and increasing attempts by members of the white establishment to reach out to black leaders in exile, led to the eventual unbanning of the African National Congress (ANC) and the release of Nelson Mandela in 1990 [35].The scenarios involved a large-scale exercise with numerous contributors, notably PierreWack and Ted Newland, as well as Clem Sunter. Most of the effort went into developingglobal scenarios which were based on the analysis of key drivers (for example, demography, technology and societal values) of developments in Japan, the USA and USSR (then regarded as the main players of the world economy), and also the ingredients for success ofwinning nations and world class companies. This work then provided the basis for theSouth African scenarios. In essence, these scenarios focus on the choice the country was facing to either (through consultation and negotiation) travel on the High Road to a non-racialdemocracy and increasing prosperity, or, to continue on the Low Road of confrontation,conflict and falling incomes (as a repressive, centralised society and controlled economy)and ending up as a waste land [35].The scenarios conclude with the need for a common vision to help launch South Africa intothe more desirable High Road scenario. This common vision entails putting South Africansfirst (looking beyond different races and groups), to turn the country into a winning nationand to work towards achieving a certain income per head, all of which would be reachedthrough negotiation [28].

1990

10

5

01995 2000 20051985

HIGH ROAD

LOW ROAD

SOUTH AFRICAGROWTHPERCENT P.A.

Figure 3. The High Road/Low Road scenarios depicting two possible future trajectories for South Africa [27]


7


2.3.1.2. Dissemination and impactWithin a year, starting in 1986, Clem Sunter presented the High Road/Low Road scenariosto 230 (mostly white) audiences at various levels of society, thereby reaching between 25 000to 30 000 people [35]. Senior politicians of the ANC were also one of Sunters audiences before the eventual negotiated settlement was reached [28]. The message of the scenariosseems to have made a big impression on the audiences as it was ultimately positive and encouraged people in the country to take it into their own hands to get on to the High Road,without being prescriptive about how this should be done [35]. In particular, the HighRoad/Low Road scenarios also seem to have contributed somewhat to the shift in thinkingin government circles, and indeed as supporting evidence for a need for change, whicheventually brought about a political transition. In conclusion then, the High Road/Low Roadscenarios started out as a corporate scenario project and resulted in a brilliant communication exercise, both in terms of content and style of presentation, that reached thousands beyond the initial intended audience and paved the way for more prominent South Africascenario exercises to come [35].In terms of uptake in the scientific and decision-making community, Clem Sunters bookSouth Africa and the World in the 1990s has been widely cited and includes discussions ofa range of topics. These include reflections on various elements of the political and economictransformation of South Africa, the future of Africa, scenario development and planningand globalisation. The citations include a variety of different sources, including books, journal articles, theses and reports. These sources are mostly from the economic, managementand social sciences, but also from the health and environmental sciences.While no examples could be found of the use of the High Road/Low Road scenarios in thewater sector, it is likely, judging from the fact that Sunter presented these scenarios to such awide range of audiences, that some members of government and other stakeholders in thewater sector would have been exposed to them in the late 1980s or early 1990s. South Africas new water legislation certainly reflects the thinking associated with the High Road scenario, with emphasis on introducing ground-breaking new principles into the governance ofSouth Africas water resources. Though somewhat outdated now, the High Road/Low Roadscenarios serve as a reminder of where South Africa could be headed at any point in history.In terms of water resources, South Africa is in need of thoughtful planning, developmentand management if its water resources are to continue to meet the needs of its ever growingand developing population.

2.3.2. Mont Fleur

2.3.2.1. Overview and processThe Mont Fleur scenarios were developed in South Africa between 1990 and 1994. Keyevents during this time were the release of Nelson Mandela, and the legalisation of the



ANC, Pan African Congress (PAC) and South African Communist Party (SACP) [36]. Thecountrys first racially inclusive elections were also held at this time. Given this political climate, multiple forums emerged that brought a broad range of stakeholders together to try todevelop a new way forward for South Africa. In particular, issues such as housing, education, and constitutional reform received attention [35, 36].The Mont Fleur scenarios formed a part of this process and essentially tried to encouragedebate, thinking and imaginative ideas around how to shape the first ten years of the newSouth Africa and also to illustrate how certain choices would steer the country towards different outcomes. The Mont Fleur scenario team was made up of a diverse group of 22 prominent South Africans, including politicians, activists, academics and business people [36].The Ostrich scenario represents a continuation of the status quo in South Africa and suggeststhat no negotiated settlement would be reached and that government would continue to benon-representative [37].

Figure 4. The Ostrich scenario [36]

The Lame Duck scenario suggests a South Africa where a settlement would have been achieved but where the transition to a new dispensation would be slow and indecisive [37].


9


Figure 5. The Lame Duck scenario [36]

The Icarus scenario suggests a rapid transition to a new government that would push forpopulist and unsustainable economic policies [37].

Figure 6. The Icarus scenario [36]



The Flight of the Flamingos scenario depicts a government that would choose sustainablepolicies that would lead the country towards inclusive growth and a maturing democracy[35, 36, 37].

Figure 7. The Flight of the Flamingos scenario [36]

By means of a process of negotiation and reflection on different drivers and concerns, theMont Fleur scenario team was able to articulate a range of potential outcomes for South Africa during the 1992 to 2002 period. This also helped to clarify the goals and aspirations related to where the country should be heading.

2.3.2.2. Dissemination and impactA variety of dissemination techniques were used by the Mont Fleur team. Key to this process was the fact that each of the individual participants took responsibility for spreading themessage of these scenarios. They did this by presenting and discussing the scenarios withmore than 50 different groups of people including political parties, companies, academics,trade unions and civil society organisations [36]. This was possible given the diverse background that the team came from. Over and above this process, the scenarios were condensed into an easily accessible 14 page document. This document was distributed tonational newspapers. A short video was also produced that combined cartoons with presentations by team members [35, 36].The impacts of this scenario development process are subtle. Three key points are important inthis regard. Firstly, Mont Fleur, along with other processes taking place in South Africa at the


11


time, helped to establish a common language and understanding about the challenges facingthe country and the way forward. This was because participants focused on an issue of common concern for all: the future of South Africa. Secondly, although participants could notagree on one major solution to South Africas problems, they could agree that certain solutionswould not work (such as armed revolutions, continued minority rule and socialism). Thirdly,through an informal process of open conversation, participants who had not expected to agreewith each other found common ground and shared understandings about the future of thecountry [36]. Given these points it is clear that the impact that the Mont Fleur scenarios had wasfirst and foremost on the individuals who participated in the process. There was subsequentlya more indirect impact on broader society once these individuals started presenting the scenarios to their various constituencies. Given the widely publicised nature of South Africas political transition, these scenarios also gained popularity overseas [35].The Mont Fleur scenarios have also been cited in a range of publications. These citations occurin journals, books, conference papers, dissertations and magazines that focus on a range of different disciplines, namely the social, natural and technical sciences. Given this broad interest,the publications cover a broad range of topics most of which are geared towards futures research, democratic transition and strategic planning. This citation record illustrates that theMont Fleur scenarios seem to have had a considerable impact on the academic community.Whilst the Mont Fleur scenarios are not obviously related to the South Africa water sector,they did contribute to setting a precedent for using scenario development for planning purposes in South Africa. So, for instance, as mentioned above, the National Water ResourcesStrategy established a set of water demand scenarios. As with the High Road/Low Road scenarios, the Mont Fleur scenarios were part of the thinking and move towards democratictransition in South Africa. As a result of and in order to complement this change, the watersector was fundamentally transformed and restructured.

2.3.3. Dinokeng scenarios

2.3.3.1. Overview and processThe Dinokeng scenario team consisted of 35 leaders from civil society, government, business,political parties, public administration, trade unions, religious groups, academia and the media. The scenario development process was sponsored by the financial institutions Old Mutual and Nedbank who believed that, 15 years into South Africas democracy, it was important toinitiate a reflective and constructive debate about the countrys future. According to the Dinokeng scenario team, some of the most prominent challenges facing South Africa are unemployment and poverty, safety and security, education and health. These challenges appear all themore grave in the context of a volatile global economic market, and a global economic crisisthat shook the world when these scenarios were developed in 2009 [30].The Dinokeng scenario team agreed that South Africa needs to realise that the country hasfailed to appreciate or understand the imperatives of running a modern democratic state,and that there is a problem with the countrys self-interested, unethical and unaccountableleadership across all sectors. Additional problems include a weak state that is increasingly



less capable of addressing the countrys critical challenges, and a population that is eithernot interested and is showing a growing dependence on the state to provide for everything,or has become co-opted into government or party structures since 1994 [30].The scenario team developed three possible scenarios which the country could be headinginto:Firstly, the Walk Apart scenario suggests the state becoming increasingly weak and ineffective, and the population, which is looking out for its own interests, eventually losing patience with the state and resorting to protest and unrest to make its views heard. Because thestate is unable to meet the populations demands and expectations, it responds brutally, andthe result is a spiral of resistance and repression. The Walk Apart scenario therefore suggests a need for South Africans to address their critical challenges, to build state capacityand to organise themselves to engage government in a constructive way, in order to preventthemselves from heading towards disintegration and decline [30].Secondly, the Walk Behind scenario suggests the state becoming increasingly confident andstrong in terms of leading and directing development, fuelled by the fact that civil society isbecoming more and more dependent and compliant. The problem is that the state does nothave the capacity to address the critical challenges the country is facing on its own. The message of this scenario is that state-led development cannot be successful if there is insufficientstate capacity. Furthermore, if the state intervenes constantly and dominates all other sectors, it will crowd out private business and civil society initiatives and will end up creating apopulation that is complacent and dependent on the state [30].Thirdly, the Walk Together scenario suggests the state becoming collaborative and increasingly listening to its citizens and leaders from different sectors, engaging with critical voices,and consulting and sharing authority in order to work towards long-term sustainability. Inthis scenario there is also a focus on a population that takes leadership and holds government accountable and shows an active interest in policy development and outcomes. It isimportant that South Africans re-engage, that the capacity of the state is strengthened andthat leaders from all sectors think beyond their own self-interest and contribute to nation-building [30].In conclusion, the present contains the seeds for all three futures to be realised. For a healthydemocracy and strong socio-economic development to persist, it is important to have ahealthy interface between an effective state and an alert and involved population; the natureof this interface is likely to determine the future of the country [30].

2.3.3.2. Dissemination and impactIn terms of dissemination and impact, once the Dinokeng scenarios on possible futures forSouth Africa had been developed, the messages of these scenarios were shared with a rangeof stakeholders. This engagement was followed up with a media and engagement campaignto communicate the Dinokeng scenarios to a variety of organisations, groups and communities across South Africa [30]. The Dinokeng scenarios and the process around their development were also placed on the Dinokeng scenarios website, which is a user-friendly resource


13


for those who are interested in finding out more about these scenarios. The Dinokeng scenarios text is also available for download here.

Figure 8. The Dinokeng scenarios [30]

A database search showed that these scenarios have been cited in a wide range of publications. These publications include discussion papers, theses, conference presentations, booksand journal papers. The topics of the publications that cited the Dinokeng scenarios arewide-ranging and include issues around interrogating and addressing social issues relatedto South Africas democracy, such as local government, education, housing, poverty, unemployment and food security. Many of these topics have a future-centred focus, e.g. investigating South Africans perceptions about the future, or planning for the future in localgovernment structures. The fact that the Dinokeng scenarios were cited in different kinds ofpublications and across different subject matters indicates that, at least among the researchcommunity, the scenarios were widely distributed and taken up by researchers from different social science-based backgrounds and interests.A question that arises here is to what extent the Dinokeng scenarios may be of relevance towater resources planning, development and management. While no examples of their use in



the water sector were found, it can be argued that the insights provided by these scenarioswould prove valuable in focusing on resolving some of the water governance related issuesSouth Africa is currently facing. Examples include problems around water pollution resulting from ineffective waste water treatment and mine and industrial effluents, and waterservice delivery to previously disadvantaged communities. Those who need to addressthese water governance related problems could benefit from taking into account the needfor maintaining a balance between strong and effective leadership in all sectors and an interested and engaged population, and reflecting on the different future directions such a relationship or lack thereof could take.

2.3.4. Water sector institutional landscape by 2025

2.3.4.1. Overview and processAn example of scenario development with particular reference to the South African watersector is the South African Water Research Commissions (WRC) Water Sector InstitutionalLandscape by 2025 scenarios, developed by the authors in 2011 with the assistance of Chantell Illbury as facilitator, and in consultation with a range of water sector related experts andstakeholders. The focus of the scenario development was on water resources management inSouth Africa, also with relevance to the water services sector. The aim of these scenarios wasto build knowledge about key drivers and uncertainties that relate to the future of the SouthAfrican water sector, and specifically about the context in which water institutions may operate in future [23].The knowledge for this project was generated through a structured research process to target existing and new institutional structures and to ensure the involvement and participation of a broad range of stakeholders. The aim of this engagement was to identify water-related needs, priorities and uncertainties based on a wide range of perspectives. A broadrange of methods was employed to include stakeholders from both rural and urban environments and with different cultures and educational backgrounds. These included interactiveworkshops, semi-structured interviews, and a web-based survey. This process was characterised by continuous assessment, learning and adaptation [23].The key drivers and uncertainties that were identified were subsequently translated into different scenarios that hold potential implications for social and economic development, aswell as water resources and services in South Africa. The four scenarios were derived from amatrix with two axes that represent the ability of the decision-making paradigm of water institutions to deal with complexity (refer to the x-axis of the diagram), and the reconciliationof environmental, social and economic demands of present and future generations (referredto as sustainability on the vertical or y-axis of the diagram) [23].Four possible scenarios emerged from the matrix. The Greedy Jackal scenario depicts aSouth Africa where water is scarce but government still struggles to meet developmental demands and address backlogs. Under these urgent socio-economic circumstances, environmental responsibility is not prioritised. Despite this the need for a multidisciplinaryresponse to complex water challenges is acknowledged [38].


15


The Wise Tortoise scenario suggests that a paradigm shift has occurred resulting in a watersector that is multi-layered and engages many different sectors given the strategic importance of the resource in all facets of development. This approach allows for proactive management rather than crisis response to challenges [38].The Busy Bee scenario suggests that the water sector is defined by great intentions but doesnot follow up on these with necessary actions. Thus, whilst rhetoric embraces sustainability,in practice there is limited economic and social development to support this process. Part ofthe challenge is a lack of civil society engagement and failure to embrace the complexity facing water resources management [38].The Ignorant Ostrich scenario suggests that government fails to recognise water as central todevelopment. As such they rush to implement politically appealing but imbalanced andshort term solutions. Civil society is not engaged in decision-making and the complexity inherent to the water sector is overlooked [38].

Figure 9. The Water sector institutional landscape by 2025 scenarios [38]

2.3.4.1. Dissemination and impactThe scenarios were printed by the WRC in the form of a colourful booklet and subsequentlyhave been disseminated to some stakeholders. The scenario document and technical report



documenting the scenario development process are also available online. While much morecould have be done in terms of dissemination, this was not a component required by theprojects funders and was therefore not planned into the project process from the start of theproject. Therefore no funding was available to carry out this important part of the scenariodevelopment process. Nonetheless, these scenarios have the potential of feeding into the decision-making processes of water resources managers and decision-makers, but could alsopotentially empower a range of other role players in the water sector to engage in participative governance [23].By studying the dissemination, impact and lessons learned from the South African scenarios discussed above, along with other literature related to the impact of scientific researchand the science-policy interface, it is possible to distil some lessons and challenges relating to impact and how to more effectively produce and disseminate impactful scenarioproducts. A discussion on the impact of scenarios in general and reflections on such impact follows below.

2.4. The impact of scenariosThe previous section explored a number of South African scenarios in terms of their contents and impact. In terms of impact, Chantell Illbury and Clem Sunter refer to the Wacktest, based on the ideas of Pierre Wack, a key scenarios planner in the 1970s and 1980s. According to this test, scenarios are not deemed important because of their prediction capability. What is important is their ability to influence the mindsets of decision-makers and toencourage them to act [39].The issue of scenario impact is in many ways tied to a broader issue often referred to as the science-policy or science-end user interface. This issue essentially speaks to the challenge of getting knowledge that is produced by scientific or expert teams to be used in the public domain.This discourse recognises that there should be a close relationship between science or researchproducts and their end-users, which could include government, policy-makers, businessesand communities. In reality, however, this relationship is not always an effective one, resulting in research often (or mostly) having minimal impact on policy and practice. The science-policy interface discourse explores why this happens in order to try to advise scientists andend-users about how to more effectively incorporate research into practice [40, 41, 42].In terms of scenarios there tend to be two major opportunities for impact. The first is an impacton the participants who are part of the scenario development process. This is referred to ascommunication for scenarios [43]. Similarly this opportunity for impact can be referred to asfirst order influence. First order influence refers to participants in the scenario developmentprocess undergoing personal changes in their thinking and behaviour. They also commit to theprocess, learn new skills, and build new networks and relationships. Because participants increasingly respect, understand and trust each other, they jointly commit to change [37].The second is the impact of scenarios on broader society. This can be referred to as communication of scenarios [43]. Here a wider group of stakeholders ideally need to be exposed to thescenarios once they are fully developed. As such, at this stage it is important to think about


17


ways to foster appropriate dissemination and use of scenarios. This stage can also be referredto as second and third order influence. Second order influence is closely linked to first order influence. Participants who have been part of the scenario development process go back to theircommunities and networks and start sharing their new language, thoughts and insights withothers. Third order influence is a process of social change, but can be difficult to monitor andstudy because of the many variable factors that influence every change process [37].The following sub-sections reflect on the impact of scenario development on the participating team as well as the impact or influence of scenarios on broader society.

2.4.1. Impacts on participants in the scenario building processParticipants in a scenario development process actively engage and transform the process inthe sense that they are asked to share their views, ideas, concerns and experiences in orderto generate drivers to develop scenarios or stories from these drivers. It is important to recognise that this kind of individual impact is difficult to quantify and tends to be very subtle[35; 37]. Nonetheless, the kinds of impacts that individuals experience can include: Experiencing reframed mental models By being forced, through the scenario develop

ment process, to articulate and share different perspectives and mental models, participants are made to think carefully about their perceptions and often re-think their viewswhen faced with other participants views and the need to move collectively towards adesired future [44].

Gaining a broadened network of relationships Scenario development processes bring together groups of people to have open and constructive conversations. This process fostersa shared understanding, trust and a sense of community [44].

Regenerating energy, commitment, and action By clarifying desired futures and building consensus about how different actions will navigate society towards certain scenarios,a sense of regenerated energy and commitment can be achieved. Also, with new commitment in place, new actions can be catalysed [44].

Taking pride in participation When interviewed, participants tend to be quite proud oftheir involvement in scenario development processes. This encourages them to use andshare the learning from the scenario development process during other projects and/orengagements [35].

Creating a common vocabulary, trust and mutual understanding Through the processof developing scenarios these subtle processes tend to be fostered. This is important as itis through trust and understanding that people are able to work together towards a desired shared future [37].

2.4.2. Facilitating and forming a scenario teamWhilst it is clear that a subtle process of impact and transformation can occur in a scenarioteam, this does not happen automatically. There are a number of lessons that have been



learned through scenario development processes over the years that need to be borne inmind.Firstly, having a diverse team is important [45]. The team should come from different age,race and gender brackets as well as a wide range of ideological spectrums [35]. This diversity is important because the more diverse the team is, the more diverse the driver inputs willbe and as such the richer and more accurate the scenario development process will be. Also,an inclusive rather than exclusive scenario development process lends legitimacy to theprocess [46].Secondly, embracing transdisciplinarity in any scenario development process is important.This implies that in order for scenarios to have the impact they need, they should be produced by a team made up of multiple different actors from government, civil society, communities, and research institutions. This will help the team to take into account differenttypes of knowledge that different actors have (such as technical, traditional, experiential,cultural, and political knowledge). In so doing the inherent complexity in future planningprocesses will be reflected [47].Finally, working with a diverse team with different knowledge, experience and viewpointsis not always easy. Conflict can arise when participants with different viewpoints are madeto work together. Also, meaningfully incorporating feedback from diverse sets of stakeholders tends to be a highly time consuming process. Given these and other challenges that canarise, the importance of having a skilled, sensitive and insightful facilitator cannot be underestimated. Such a facilitator needs to be able to manage strong individuals who dominateconversation with their own agendas, and needs to be able to encourage everyone to expresstheir opinions during the scenario development process [35].

2.4.3. Impacts on broader societyThe impacts of scenarios on broader society are harder to ascertain and measure than theimpacts of scenario development on the scenario team itself. This is because there are nomeasurable criteria for quantifying the impact that scenario products have on society, bethey in written or oral form. Also the outcome of scenario development processes can neverbe attributed to a single factor. Scenario development processes typically deal with broaddevelopmental issues making the range of issues and actors that they try to affect diverse.Scenario development processes also happen within the context of a range of related socialactivities, such as developments in policy, civil society events and public debates. For example, in the case of developing the South African scenarios of the 1980s and 1990s, there weremultiple social forums, political parties, and government groups working on transformingthe country. These scenarios and their related processes were just one input amongst manyothers that were part of the broad transition process. Similarly, the Water Sector InstitutionalLandscape by 2025 scenarios exist alongside scenarios established by the National Water Resources Strategy, the various government departments that do strategic planning and forecasts in relation to water, and the host of grassroots organisations that work on managingwater sustainably for the future. Any impact or change in the water sector must then be attributed to a whole range of interlocking factors rather than just one set of scenarios.


19


2.4.4. Facilitating the effective dissemination of scenario products to societyIn order for scenarios to have influence in the broader public space a number of key lessonsare important. Firstly, a broad and extensive communication process is a key requirementand should be planned and budgeted for from the beginning of the project [42]. It is important that such a process targets multiple different actors in society, and takes place at manylevels of scale (local, provincial, national) [23, 41, 42] in order to engage society and attemptto create a better future [37]. Non-government actors are an important target audience because they are critical in terms of instigating social debate, bringing about grassrootschanges and challenging authorities to improve their performance [42].In government, actors need to be aware of scenario products and how they can make useof them [23]. With regard to the South African water sector in particular, there seems tobe a need to enable officials from DWA to apply the outcome of scenarios thinking andprocesses in their strategic decision-making aimed at mapping out the future of the watersector. A possible way of enabling experts and government officials to think imaginatively and creatively about the future, given their considerable daily workload and challenges, would be to involve scenario experts as facilitators for strategic planning sessions.Such sessions should ideally take the form of one or two day workshops in order to remove government officials from their immediate working environment and enable themto apply their minds to thinking creatively and focusing exclusively on the planning taskat hand [23]. When engaging with government departments, it is important to be sensitive to and aware of different issues inherent in the government hierarchy. Non-political,technical experts tend to have a good knowledge of technical issues, but it is also important to target more senior political actors as they tend to have more decision-making power and can therefore implement changes and ideas brought about through the scenariodevelopment process more effectively [42].It has been argued that regardless of which actor is being focused on, there are three keypoints to bear in mind in terms of targeting actors with information. A clear plan of actionneeds to be laid out and followed up on. The information needs to be shared in a mannerthat is non-threatening, interactive and flexible. Scenarios can be disseminated by tappinginto existing networks and events such as management meetings, seminars and the media[42].In addition, the way that scenarios are packaged and communicated is important [42]. Thereis a whole host of ways that information can be packaged and disseminated. There can beface-to-face dissemination [23], where scenarios are verbally presented at workshops, conferences, public gatherings, business breakfasts, and corporate events. Style of presentationis crucial in this regard. The presentations need to be simple, clear and memorable. The presenter needs to be engaging and open to feedback from the audience [35]. Radio or television documentaries can also be utilised to disseminate scenario ideas and generate publicdebate [36, 40, 42].Another option is to publish the scenarios in a written format. A range of media can be used.The scenarios can be published in books, illustrated pamphlets [23] and newspapers [48].



Cartoon artists can be brought on board to illustrate the scenarios. Magazines and web pages can also be targeted. Written documentation about scenarios has proved to be a successful model. For example, Sunter and Illburys The Mind of the Fox: Scenario Planning inAction [49] is popular reading material and widely distributed.Finally, it is crucial that the scenario products are seen as legitimate from the start of the scenario development process. They need to have buy-in from influential people involved inthe issue that the scenarios explore. This legitimacy is generated by ensuring that the facilitators of the process as well as the scenario team are respected. Although a range of actorsmust be included in the scenario development process, and must be targeted in the dissemination process, it remains important to include high level and well-connected people in theteam as it is often these individuals who will provide the insider links for scenarios to beheard and disseminated through channels of influence [42]. If these strategic individualscannot be made part of the team, they need to be made aware of and kept informed aboutthe scenario development process to secure their interest and support [35].Dissemination is not without its challenges. It is challenging to disseminate in a way thatsuits and reaches a diverse audience with different languages, levels of education, variedprofessional backgrounds and cultures. Another challenge of ensuring the uptake of scenarios (and research in general) is that dissemination is often not part of the project planningprocess, and as a result funding often runs out before scenario uptake and use can be promoted [48]. Also, depending on how it is done, the dissemination of scenarios can be veryexpensive [35].

2.4.5. General reflections on impactOver and above the specific processes linked to the impact of scenarios on the scenario teamand broader society there are some general points that are important to bear in mind whenplanning for impact in relation to scenario products.Firstly, when starting the scenario development process, it is important to be clear about thepurpose of the process one is undertaking and designing it accordingly. What are the intended outcomes of the process? Who is the process meant to influence and what product(s)will be necessary for this to happen [35]? Essentially scenarios need to fill a strategic gap oropportunity in society [50].Secondly, questions also need to be asked about the timing of the scenario developmentprocess. Is there likely to be sufficient recognition among the intended target audience(s)that the problem being addressed is important and that the process is therefore potentiallybeneficial? Is the political environment such that intended target audience(s) will be responsive to fresh, unorthodox thinking [35, 42]?Thirdly, attention also needs to be paid to the legitimacy of those financing and promotingthe process, and the credibility of the project team developing the scenarios in the eyes ofboth the sponsors and the target audience(s) [35, 40, 42].


21


3. ConclusionsIn conclusion, it seems that since the initial High Road/Low Road scenarios were developed,scenario development has taken root in South Africa, with several follow up scenarios having been developed since [28]. This development suggests that South African decision-makers must deem scenario development to be of considerable importance and utility, as it isoften government or government-related institutions that develop or commission new setsof scenarios. These subsequent scenarios seem to mirror their predecessors with their snappy titles and straightforward structure and certainly have the potential to inspire decision-makers with regard to their planning activities [28].Based on the discussion and reflections above, scenario development should involve a focus on dissemination and impact from the onset of the scenario process. Impact can happen at the level of participants in the scenario development process as they are exposedto new ideas and start adopting a new way of thinking about current issues of importance. These ideas have the potential to slowly infiltrate the networks of these participants and to also influence their thinking. At the same time, it is important to have astrong dissemination process in order to reach as many people as possible beyond theproject team. The High Road/Low Road presentations are an example of a highly effective dissemination process made possible by an engaging speaker and interesting topicthat was clearly and simply brought across to a wide range of audiences. Another keymethod of dissemination is to raise awareness about where the scenarios can be foundand to make it easy for people to access them. The open access route followed by the Dinokeng scenario team is a good example of a scenario document that is easily availableon a website, accompanied by much useful background information. It is this dissemination phase that has been lacking in the Water Sector Institutional Landscape by 2025 scenarios, and a follow up process is needed to plan how more people could be made awareof these scenarios and their usefulness to decision-making and planning in the South African water sector.It is also important to keep in mind that scenarios are likely to have a higher impact if theyare developed with the intention of identifying or solving particular problems [51]. If thereis an intended target audience with particular information needs from the beginning of thescenario process, the scenario team will be able to keep this in mind when developing thescenarios. This will also ensure more effective uptake of the scenarios as pre-defined end-users exist. In the water sector, for instance, it could be effective for decision-makers who aregrappling with a particular issue to solicit scenario inputs to aid them in making decisionsregarding that issue.In terms of future research, three areas come to mind based on what has been discussed inthis chapter:Firstly, a large scale study (mostly comprising of interviews) is needed to understand ingreater detail the impact of scenarios on scenario participants, society and government planning processes [28]. Much of what has been argued to date in terms of the impact of scenarios has been on the basis of inference and assumptions. It would be interesting, thoughadmittedly also very difficult, to try to substantiate views around the impact of scenarioswith empirical evidence.



Secondly, it would be important to study how a scenario team would know that the timingis right to come up with and disseminate a new set of scenarios. It is reasonably easy to seethat scenarios would have been important for particular moments in history, for examplethe political transition in South Africa, but it is considerably more difficult to determinewhen there may be an ideal window of opportunity in future in which scenarios may makean impact. It may also be important to determine which factors other than and in support ofideal timing would be important for scenarios to achieve impact.Thirdly, building on this chapter, it would be important to determine how best to ensurethat scenarios can become more useful and practical to policy-makers and other end-users.How can scenario teams ensure that end-users know how best they may use scenarios in order to influence their future planning? The issue of providing navigation to and betweendifferent scenarios and future outcomes is important in this regard.Clearly, scenario development is a useful process to help decision-makers cope with andplan amidst uncertainty. Particularly in the context of the South African water sector, it isimportant to recognise that uncertainty is deepening in many ways given the impendingpresence of multiple stressors such as climate change, basin closure, growing populations,migration movements and a growing economy. These stressors, along with the institutionalfluctuations and changes within the water sector itself, make it increasingly important fordecision-makers to work with scenarios to help them to plan sensibly and creatively despiteuncertainty. However, in order for scenarios to be useful it is important to plan for and carefully think about how to maximise their impact.

AcknowledgementsThe authors would like to acknowledge the CSIRs librarian, Engela van Heerden, for herexcellent work in sourcing a large amount of relevant literature that contributed to thischapter. They would also like to acknowledge Wilma Strydom for her valuable review comments on this chapter. Finally, the authors would like to acknowledge the Water ResearchCommission (WRC), the organisation that funded the development of the Water Sector Institutional Landscape by 2025 scenarios. The learning that the project team gained from thisproject was a key input into this chapter.

Author detailsNikki Funke, Marius Claassen and Shanna Nienaber*Address all correspondence to: [email protected] Resources and Environment Unit, Council for Scientific and Industrial Research,Pretoria, South Africa


23


References[1] Bogardi JJ, Dudgeon D, Lawford R, Flinkerbusch E, Meyn A, Pahl-Wostl C, Vielhau

uer K and Vrsmarty C. Water Security for a Planet Under Pressure: InterconnectedChallenges of a Changing World Call for Sustainable Solutions. Current Opinion inEnvironmental Sustainability 2012; 4 3543.

[2] Slaughter RA.Welcome to the Anthropocene. Futures 2012; 44 119126.[3] WWAP (World Water Assessment Programme). The United Nations World Water

Development Report 4: Managing Water under Uncertainty and Risk. Paris:UNESCO; 2012.

[4] UN (United Nations). Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the HumanEnvironment. Stockholm, 5-16 June 1972.

[5] Brundtland GH. Address by Mrs Gro Harlem Brundtland, Chairman at the ClosingCeremony of the Eighth and Final Meeting of the World Commission on Environment and Development 27 February 1987. Tokyo, Japan.

[6] WMO (World Meteorological Organisation). International Conference on Water andthe Environment: Development Issues for the 21st Century. Geneva: ICWE Secretariat; 1992.

[7] UN (United Nations). Agenda 21. United Nations Conference on Environment andDevelopment Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 3 to 14 June 1992.

[8] Spangenberg JH, Pfahl S, Deller K. Towards Indicators for Institutional Sustainability: Lessons From an Analysis of Agenda 21. Ecological Indicators 2002; 2 6177.

[9] UN (United Nations). World Development Report, 1980. Washington, D.C.: TheWorld Bank; 1980.

[10] UN (United Nations). World Development Report, 1985. New York: Oxford University Press; 1985.

[11] UN (United Nations). World Development Report, 1990: Poverty. New York: OxfordUniversity Press; 1985.

[12] UN (United Nations). World Development Report, 1995: Workers in an IntegratingWorld. New York: Oxford University Press; 1995.

[13] World Bank. Indicators. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator. (accessed 30 July 2012).[14] Bates C, Kundzewicz ZW, Wu S and Palutikof JP., editors. Climate Change and Wa

ter. Technical Paper of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva:IPCC Secretariat; 2008.

[15] Davis CL. Climate Risk and Vulnerability: A Handbook for Southern Africa. Pretoria:Council for Scientific and Industrial Research; 2011.



[16] Tewari DD. A Detailed Analysis of the Evolution of Water Rights in South Africa: AnAccount of Three and a Half Centuries from 1652 AD to the Present. Water SA 2009;35(5) 693-710.

[17] Gleick PH. The Worlds Water, 1998-1999. Washington DC: Island Press; 1998.[18] DWAF (Department of Water Affairs and Forestry). National Water Act of South Af

rica. Act No. 36 of 1998. Pretoria: Department of Water Affairs and Forestry; 1998.[19] DWAF (Department of Water Affairs and Forestry). National Water Resources Strat

egy First Edition. Pretoria: Department of Water Affairs and Forestry; 2004.[20] DWA (Department of Water Affairs). Annual Report of the Department of Water Af

fairs Vote 37: 1 April 2010 To 31 March 2011. http://www.pmg.org.za/minutes/30. (accessed 6 August 2012).

[21] Emerson JW, Hsu A, Levy MA, de Sherbinin A, Mara V, Esty DC, Jaiteh M. Environmental Performance Index and Pilot Trend Environmental Performance Index. NewHaven: Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy; 2012.

[22] Green GC, Day JA, Mitchell SA, Palmer C, Laker MC, Buckley CA. Water ResearchCommission 40-Year Celebration Conference - Syntheses of Themed Sessions. WaterSA 2011; 37(5) 609-618.

[23] Claassen M, Funke N, Nienaber S. 2011. The Water Sector Institutional Landscape by2025 Technical Report. WRC Report No. 1841/1/11. Pretoria: Water Research Commission; 2011.

[24] Mietzner D, Reger G. EU-US Seminar: New Technology Foresight, Forecasting andAssessment Methods. Seville; 13-14 May 2004.

[25] Landeta J. Current Validity of the Delphi Method in Social Sciences. TechnologicalForecasting and Social Change 2006; 73 467-482.

[26] Daum J. How Scenario Planning Can Significantly Reduce Strategic Risks and BoostValue in the Innovation Chain. The New Economy Analyst Report 8 September 2001.

[27] Sunter C. The World and South Africa in the 1990s. Cape Town: Human RousseauTafelberg; 1987.

[28] Galer G. Scenarios of Change in South Africa. The Round Table 2004; 93(375) 369-383.[29] DACST (Department of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology). South African Na

tional Research and Technology Foresight Project. Pretoria: DACST; 1999.[30] Dinokeng team. 3 Futures for South Africa. www.dinokengscenarios.co.za (accessed

10 August 2012).[31] (WBCSD) World Business Council for Sustainable Development. Business in the

World of Water: WBCSD Water Scenarios to 2025. www.wbcsd.org/web/H2OScenarios.htm (accessed 30 July 2012).


25


[32] GRA (Global Research Alliance) Science and Technology-Based Water Scenarios forSub-Saharan Africa. www.research-alliance.net. (accessed 6 August 2012).

[33] Peterson GD, Cumming GS, Carpenter SR. Scenario Planning: A Tool for Conservation in an Uncertain World. Conservation Biology 2003; 17(2) 358-366.

[34] Finlev T. Future Peace: Breaking Cycles of Violence through Futures Thinking. Journal of Futures Studies 2012; 16(3) 47-62.

[35] Segal N. Breaking the Mould: The Role of Scenarios in Shaping South Africas Future. Stellenbosch: SUN Press; 2007.

[36] Kahane A. The Mont Fleur Scenarios: What Will South Africe Be Like in the Year2002? Deeper News 1992, 7(1) 1-22.

[37] Maddison S, Cronin D, Williams S, Coggan R. Democratic Dialogue: Finding theRight Model for Australia. Indigenous Policy and Research Unit, Discussion PaperNo.1. Sydney: University of New South Wales; 2009.

[38] Claassen M, Funke N, Nienaber S. The Water Sector Institutional Landscape by 2025.WRC Report No. TT 514/11. Pretoria: Water Research Commission; 2011.

[39] Karuri-Sebina G, Rosenzweig L. A Case Study on Localising Foresight in South Africa: Using Foresight in the Context of Local Government Participatory Planning. Foresight 2007, 14(1) 26-40.

[40] Strydom WF, Funke N, Nienaber S, Nortje K, Steyn M. Evidence-based Policy-making: A Review. South African Journal of Science 2010; 106(5/6) 249 334.

[41] Funke N, Nienaber S, Henwood R. Scientists as Lobbyists? How Science Can Makeits Voice Heard in the South Africa Policy-Making Arena. International Journal ofPublic Affairs 2011; 10(102) 421 443.

[42] Funke N, Nienaber S. Promoting Uptake and Use of Conservation Science in SouthAfrica by Government. Water SA 2012; 38(1) 105-114.

[43] Lebel L, Thongbai P, Kok K, Agard JBR, Bennett EM, Biggs R, Ferreira M, Filer C, Gokhale Y, Mala W, Rumsey C, Velarde SJ, Zurek M, Blanco H, Lynam T, Tianxiang Y.Sub-global Scenarios. In: Capistrano D, Lee M, Raudsepp-Hearne C, Samper C. (eds.)Ecosystems and Human Wellbeing: Multi-scale Assessments. Findings of the Subglobal Assessments Working Group of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Washington D.C.: Island Press; 2005. p229-259.

[44] Ringland G. Scenario Planning, 2nd edition. England: John Wiley & Sons; 2006.[45] Audouin M, Preiser R, Nienaber S, Downsborough L, Lanz J, Mavengahama S. Ex

ploring the Logic of Complexity for Researching Social-Ecological Systems. Ecologyand Society In Press.

[46] Ogilvy JA. Creating Better Futures: Scenario Planning as a Tool for a Better Tomorrow. New York: Oxford University Press; 2002.



[47] Jacobs I, Nienaber S. Water Without Borders: Transboundary Water Governance andthe Role of the Transdisciplinary Individual in Southern Africa. Water SA (WRC 40Year Celebration Special Edition 2011; 37(5) 665 678.

[48] Communication with Clem Sunter. 26 July 2012. Pretoria.[49] Illbury C, Sunter C. The Mind of a Fox. Cape Town: Human & Rousseau/Tafelberg;

2001.[50] Johnson G, Scholes K, Whittington R. Exploring Corporate Strategy: Text and Cases.

New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Financial Times Press; 2008.[51] Bohenksy E, Reyers B, Van Jaarsveld AS. Future Ecosystem Services in a Southern

African River Basin: a Scenario Planning Approach to Uncertainty. Conservation Biology 2006; 20(4) 1051-1061.


27


Chapter 2

Recent Developments in Monitoringof Microbiological Indicators of Water QualityAcross a Range of Water Types

Sandra Mesquita and Rachel T. NobleAdditional information is available at the end of the chapter

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/45847

1. IntroductionAs human pressure increases, so does exploitation of natural water sources for productionof drinking water, public use and appreciation of recreational waters. Subsequently, the demand for faster and reliable monitoring methods and approaches has also been intensified.Ensuring that water is safe, whether for bathing or consumption is a critical complex processthat requires the participation of multiple stakeholders [1, 2] and also distinct degrees ofknowledge with respect to water management.For quantifying microbial contaminants that are dangerous to public health, fecal indicatorbacteria (FIB) are used worldwide as indicators of the potential presence of dangerouspathogens that can be found in water used for bathing, drinking and harvesting of seafood.The indicator system relies on the assumption that FIB are present concomitant to thepresence of human bacterial, viral and parasitic pathogens of concern. Furthermore, the indicator system simplifies management, because no single pathogen can be singularly attributed to the majority of waterborne disease. If pathogens were measured for management ofwater quality, the list of candidates to be quantified would be many. The FIB system relieson thresholds that have been established using epidemiological studies and risk assessmentframeworks (see Annapolis Protocol and WHO bathing water guidelines).While the standards for drinking water, recreational water and shellfish harvesting waters and meats arebased upon similar approaches [3], different types of waters can have different acceptablethresholds for the same FIB because of differences in either acceptable risk, the relative useof the water (i.e. for consumption versus recreation), and a range of other factors. Therefore,

2013 Mesquita and Noble; licensee InTech. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of theCreative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permitsunrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.


acceptable thresholds for FIB in drinking water, recreational water and shellfish harvestingwaters and meats vary by continent, region, state and locality.By definition an indicator (in this case, FIB) should be, 1) able to be enumerated using standardized tests that are relatively cost-effective and user-friendly, 2) present in high concentrations in human fecal contamination, matching the high concentrations of other respectivepathogens, and 3) well studied in relation to human health, with epidemiological studies tolink FIB concentrations and adverse health outcomes such as gastrointestinal and respiratory human diseases [4, 5, 6]. These assumptions can be tenuous at times for all types of waters and for all of the FIB groups currently utilized for water quality management. However,it is generally accepted that regulation using FIB to protect public health is successful. Forexample, total coliforms do not exactly fit these requirements since they are not exclusivelyfecal in origin; however they are often used in conjunction with other FIB enumeration approaches to protect public health in drinking water [7]. Even though some of the assumptions listed above are violated periodically for the use of FIB to protect public health in theregulation of drinking water, an alternative approach is often unattainable. Human pathogens are heterogeneous, can be highly seasonal, and can be highly infectious at low doses.The range of enteric viruses alone that could be monitored in drinking water is vast, andthese pathogens are difficult to detect [8, 9, 11]. A discussion of the pathogens of concern isbeyond the scope of this chapter, and the reader is referred to a range of quality publicationson the topic (e.g. 11, 12).The indicator system can be used successfully, particularly if newresearch and methodologies in the water quality arena are incorporated into management.As a community, we can attain improved means of management of public health in water, ifattention is paid to utilization and incorporation of new monitoring tools, new models andmolecular tools. Current advances in science include rapid quantitative PCR assays (QPCR)developed to track distinct microorganisms in multiple water sources [12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 7].In this chapter, we highlight recent advancements in the management of water, and in monitoring of microbial water quality in drinking water production and recreational waters.First, we highlight the current regulatory landscape for microbiological indicators. Second,we will describe the application and evolution of molecular tools for rapid quantification ofFIB (E. coli and Enterococcus sp.), in a range of water types. We will include some of the limitations and advantages of different types of culture based methods as compared to the recently developed rapid QPCR-based methods. We will present a small case study conductedalong high use beaches along the Pacific Ocean of California, USA. Third, we highlight recent developments in the field of Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs) and concerns over cyanobacterial toxins in surface water sources for drinking water. Following the presentation ofinformation presented on HABs, and comparing E. coli and Enterococcussp. concentrationsusing culture based and molecular (qPCR) rapid methods, the authors will consider the application of newly developed source tracking markers for quantification of fecal contamination fecal contamination. These microbial source tracking (MST) tools are currently beingused and expanded for the management of a range of water types. The chapter is intendedto highlight recent advancements, while promoting the consideration of other successful ap



proaches for managing water resources well into the 21st century with an eye toward improved protection of public health.

2. Regulatory landscape across major water types: Highlighting the use ofthe fecal indicator bacteria as part of the "indicator" systemTraditionally, the application of FIB for water quality monitoring included enumeration ofmembers of the total coliform group. This group was originally described on the basis of lactose fermentation detection instead of upon the principles of systematic bacteriology [3;17-26]. Total coliforms are still used widely for management of drinking water, but their soleuse in recreational water quality monitoring has decreased in favor of enumeration of FIBthat are specific to fecal contamination from warm-blooded animals (i.e. E. coli and Enterococcus sp.). Total coliforms are defined by their respective characteristics, i.e. they are Gramnegative facultative anaerobes that do not form spores are rod-shaped bacteria, with lactosefermentation occurring with acid production (24-48h, 36C), and are indole-negative. Coliforms belong to the family Enterobacteriaceae which includes Escherichia, Enterobacter, Klebsiella and Citrobacter, Kluyvera, Leclercia, and some members of the genus Serratia [27].In all of the culture-dependent methods, cultivation conditions are choose in order to improve the growth of the target microorganism while simultaneously inhibiting the growth ofother microorganisms. Balance amongst sensitivity and selectivity is the reason for differentmethods for sample processing (drinking water vs highly contaminated waters) [28] and selection of different approaches for quantification using traditional culture based methods.The three most widely used culture based methods for quantification of FIB in any watertype are Defined Substrate Technology (DST, e.g. IDEXX Colilert-18), multiple tube fermentation (MTF), and membrane filtration (MF). The first edition of Standard Methods forthe Examination of Water and Wastewater was released in 1905 and E. coli was selected asthe most suitable indicator organism for raw drinking water [29]. Therefore multiple detection methods for E. coli were available early in the century. As scientific knowledge evolveda broader group of microorganisms (still including total coliforms, fecal coliforms, and E.coli) have been selected as surrogate measures in a wide range of water sources and treatedwater [30]. Two key factors have led to the trend of using E. coli as the preferred indicatorfor the detection of fecal contamination, not only in drinking water but in other matrices aswell: first, the finding that some fecal coliforms were non-fecal in origin, and second, thedevelopment of improved testing methods for E. coli [1-19]. Membrane filtration is commonly selected for FIB quantification along the drinking water treatment process since it is flexible to the amount of sample filtered and since the method permits specific quantification.That is, both MTF and DST-based methods are either reported in a presence/absence formator in a most probable number format. Colilert and Colilert- 18, however, tend to beused at the end of pipe and are user friendly methods, such that their popularity has increased in the past decade.

Recent Developments in Monitoring of Microbiological Indicators of Water Quality Across a Range of Water Typeshttp://dx.doi.org/10.5772/45847

31


An example of current regulations for protection of public health in Europe, USA and othercountries is summarized in Table 1 [20]. Note that many currently used methods both totalcoliform and E. coli enumeration together, as IDEXX DST kits such as Colilert-18 permitthe simultaneous quantification of both groups. Furthermore, while guidelines have been issued in different countries, as highlighted in Table 1, the interpretation and implementationof monitoring typically falls in the hands of member states and provinces; this creates awide range of monitoring approaches that are currently employed for management ofdrinking, recreational, and shellfish harvesting water quality. It is for this reason that only atable for drinking water is presented, as drinking water regulations are the most stringentand consistent across nations.

Parameter Canada United States UnitedKingdom EU directive WHO* Australia

Total Coliforms0/100mL

in 90%0/100mL

in 95%0/100mL 0/100mL * *

Thermotolerant coliforms (fecalcoliforms) or E. coli

* 0/100mL * * 0/100mL *

E. coli 0/100mL 0/100mL 0/100mL 0/100mL 0/100mL *

Enterococci * * 0/100mL 0/100mL * *

Cryptosporidium parvum *99% removal or

inactivation

The World Health Organization (WHO) Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality [32] represent an overall international scientific consensus, based on a wide range of participants, ofthe health risks presented by microbes and chemicals in drinking water. The existence of international guidelines for cyanobacteria microcystins (1 g/L microcystins LR) in drinkingwater has been established by WHO (1998). Most countries rely upon this value and developed specific systems adapted for their own reality. For instance, in Brazil federal legislationrequires more intensive monitoring programs including toxin analyses or toxicity testing ifcyanobacteria exceed 10,000 cells/ml or 1 mm biovolume in a given water sample. This includes a mandatory standard of 1 g/L applied for microcystins (variants not specified), andrecommendations limiting to saxitoxin 3g/L.Evaluation of water quality for drinking water production requires sampling collection at specific temporal intervals to ensure safety for the public. Usually it is recommended to sampleacross the process of drinking water treatment, permitting an analysis of bacteriological waterquality throughout processing and distribution [6,7]. This permits rapid identification of aprocess or component in the distribution system that is failing, and rather than troubleshooting across the entire process, subsequent attention can be focused on specific components. Thisapproach simultaneously prevents local contamination from developing undetected at cross-connections or breaks in the distribution lines or due to a drop in positive pressure [1, 34, 35].The definition of a recreational water body represents a wide range of environments that include the ocean, hot springs, lakes, reservoirs, streams and rivers [34]. Similarly, the diversityof potential human pathogenic microorganisms includes all viruses, protozoans, and bacteriathat could potentially be present in natural fresh and marine recreational waters particularlythose contaminated by wastewater [9, 36]. In recreational water quality monitoring, monitoring approaches are often guided by use. Beaches that are used intensely by the public (such asthose in Santa Monica Bay, California, USA) are monitored daily throughout the summer bathing season. In some states or areas with lower beach usage, during specific off seasons, orareas that are used only for secondary contact recreation such as kayaking and sailing, monitoring for FIB might be conducted only once per month. Although a broad discussion is beyond the scope of this documen

Documents

Water Resources - Planning Development and Management